A Better Understanding

When I think back to my first thoughts on diplomacy I am actually shocked at myself. For someone who considers themself to be aware of current affairs and aware of the immense impact that globalization has had on global politics, I cant believe I was ever so narrow-minded. I used to think there was only really one format for a diplomat, that being a person employed by the government of a state who would uphold their states reputation and discuss state business through discourse (mostly in private) with a representative from another state.

The biggest challenge for me was the notion of 'celebrity' diplomacy (see Andrew Coopers book 'Celebrity Dimplomacy') which was hotly debated in one of my seminars. I was arguing that being a celebrity does not qualify someone to represent their country within a political framework. Another student retorted that she did not feel it mattered, so long as the celebrity was furthering a good cause irregardless of any personal gain they would receive. What I found even more surprising is that there is actually a good deal of material on the subject matter as well, obviously this phenomenon is not new and is something which is actually well documented and debated.

It shocks me that some academics still argue over the significance of diplomacy, whether it be the 'old' diplomacy or the 'new'. The idea that the role of creating and maintaining relations with state and non-state actors across the globe is ineffectual as suggested by academics such as Waltz stuns me. I think it is true to say that the face of diplomacy has changed much from the traditional kind and I can understand why, from a realist stand-point concepts such as 'celebrity' diplomacy may not hold much merit. Nevertheless, this new diplomacy seems to work for our global political system in the twenty-first century. I remember my reading for the first week was from Morgethau's 'Politics Among Nations' and I found his argument so convincing. I was completely sold on his idea of the 'four tasks of diplomacy' but now I look back over my notes I realise I'm not the believer I used to be. Morgethau believed a state would fail to achieve its goals under certain conditions - I would argue that diplomacy is not neccessarily restricted to state-to-state parameters. Condition one for failure - not enough power to achieve the ultimate goal. To this I would argue that it is not the solely strength of power that is needed but instead the level of influence. Condition two for failure - the wrong assesment of another states objectives and the power at their disposal. This to me, does not encompass such topics as environmental diplomacy which has to be treated differently to say foreign policy diplomacy. Morganthau also argued that for a diplomat to be successful he/she would need to use a combination of persuasion, compromise and the threat of force. Can you imagine an ambassador for Amnesty International threatening the life of a politician in order to stop the torture of individuals in Guantanamo Bay? The mere thought of it is almost comical! I'm not trying to disagree with Morgethau rather I think his model of diplomacy is more suitable to a very traditional form of diplomacy which does not apply to us today. I will give Morganthau credit, he does highlight what he calls the 'decline' of diplomacy ( I would rather use the term 'evolution') where he notes the end of World War II and the rise of the communications age as the major changing point in diplomacy.

The definition of diplomacy for me has changed greatly since I first started the module all those months ago. Instead of imagining 2 ageing men conversing over politics with a pipe and glass of whisky, I can now look at NGO's promoting fair trade policies or young celebrities speaking of their time helping orphaned children in Haiti. It is with this new insight I am hopeful that individual citizens like you or I may too, in the future, help to shape our world through diplomacy.